Pages

Saturday, March 9, 2013

WORLD: NGO Council flags circumcision as human rights violation

International NGO Council raises human rights questions

The International NGO Council on Violence against Children published a report on
harmful traditional practices in October 2012. On male
circumcision, it says:

Male circumcision

Male circumcision has been largely neglected in
mainstream debates on harmful practices because
of its strong religious connections, particularly with
Judaism and Islam, and its general acceptance in
many societies. ...

Until recently, male circumcision has generally been
challenged only when carried out by non-medical
personal in unhygienic settings without pain relief. But a
children’s rights analysis suggests that non-consensual,
non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the
circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights,
including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of
thought and religion and to protection from physical
and mental violence. When extreme complications
arise, it may violate the right to life. It is reported that
male circumcision can result in numerous physical,
psychological, and sexual health problems during the
surgery, afterwards, and throughout adulthood, including
haemorrhage, panic attacks, erectile dysfunction,
infection (in severe forms leading to partial or complete
loss of the penis), urinary infections, necrosis, permanent
injury or loss of the glans, excessive penile skin loss,
external deformity, and in some cases even death.

There are now substantial established campaigns
against non-therapeutic, non-consensual circumcision
of boys and growing support to end it, particularly
within the medical community. For example, the Royal
Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has publicly taken
a children’s rights position that: “children must not
be subjected to medical proceedings that have no
therapeutic or preventative value.” In addition, in
2011 the then Ombudsman for Children in Norway
advocated that boys should not be circumcised for
non-therapeutic reasons until they are old enough to
give their informed consent and that parents should
not be able to consent on behalf of their children.
Most recently, in 2012 a German court ruled that male
circumcision constitutes a violation of physical integrity
as a child is “permanently and irreparably changed by
the circumcision” and that the practice is also in conflict
with the child’s [and the future adult's] right to religious freedom.

The WHO review quoted three randomized controlled
trials suggesting that circumcision reduces the risk
of acquiring HIV infection in males. But this potential
health benefit does not over-ride a child’s [and hence a man's] right to
give [or withhold] informed consent to the practice. The decision
to undertake circumcision for these reasons can be
deferred to a time where the risk is relevant and the
child is old enough to choose and consent for himself.

- International NGO Council on Violence against Children. (Oct 2012)."Violating
children’s rights: Harmful practices based on tradition, culture, religion or
superstition"p 21-22